CHI/45UG/LSC/2024/0084 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UG/LSC/2024/0084, decided 10 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Newacre House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UR and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Newacre House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UR
Decision date: 10 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Galliard East Grinstead Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2023) | £95,243 | £95,243 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | £5,042 | £5,042 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £7,746 | £7,746 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £15,075 | £15,075 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2023) | £3,486 | £3,486 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £34,484 | £34,484 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £18,758 | £18,758 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £20,053.28 | £20,053.28 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that given the volatile market and in the absence of alternative costings, the approach adopted in securing electricity for the communal parts to be reasonable. The Tribunal therefore determines the following budget service charges to be reasonable: 2023 Budget £95,243 with the 2023 Actual £20,282”
“2022 Budget £5042 with the 2022 Actual £17,991.”
“In the absence of alternative costings or approach the Tribunal finds that the apportionment method, adopted by the Respondent is rational, reasonable and the premium in the absence of alternative quotations is reasonable. The figures are for the insurance year 2022 £7746 and for the insurance year 2023 £15075.”
“the apportionment method, adopted by the Respondent is rational, reasonable and the premium in the absence of alternative quotations is reasonable.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds that no section 20 procedure was needed and that the in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the amount charged is unreasonable then the amount in respect of the lift remains payable in full.”
“The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's explanation, it is logical that the 2022 fee would be lower because it is for part of the year, and in the absence of challenge on the specific amount and the Tribunal using its expert knowledge considers the management fee element reasonable and payable in full.”
“The Tribunal was troubled that it took so long for a coherent explanation to be forthcoming from the Respondent. It is difficult to see how the Applicant could have been expected to understand the apportionment prior to the explanation provided in the Tribunal.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.